K AJIT BABU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the application filed by the appellants under S. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) could be rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal as not maintainable.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the question referred to above are these:- The establishment of the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports is divided into four separate zones, viz., eastern, western, southern and northern and the employee of each of the said zones have combined seniority list. The present appeal concerns the appellants working in the western zone which comprises the establishments at Bombay, Ahmedabad, Gandhidham, Rajkot, Bhopal and Goa. Each of the zone comprises of posts of Lower Division Clerks, Upper Division Clerks, Section Heads, Controllers, etc. (for sort LDCs, UDCs, etc.). The LDCs are the lowest category from which the promotions are available to the post of UDCs, from which promotion is made as Licensing Assistants and thereafter as Section Heads. From the post of Section Heads, the employees are eligible to be promoted to the post of Controllers. The seniority lists are maintained cadrewise. The promotion to the post of UDC is made on the basis of seniority roll, whereas promotion to Licensing Assistants, Section Head and Controllers are made on the basis of selection i.e. seniority-cum-merit. The appellant before us were appointed as LDCs. In due course they were promoted as UDCs, Licensing Assistants, Section Heads and Controllers. As Controllers they were promoted on ad hoc basis. They were working in the western zone which is headed by the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Subsequently, it was found that some of the officers who were promoted and were transferred in new offices were reluctant to join in the new place of posting and as such, since the year 1978 a policy was adopted for seeking options as to whether they are ready to go on transfer in case they are promoted or they would like to stay at the place of present posting foregoing their promotions. The officers who have given their options to go out to new place of posting in case of promotion, they were given promotions in preference to the claims of their seniors.

(3.) In the year 1983, one PS Jhon and others who were affected by the seniority list published on 13-10-1981 and were working at Ahmedabad filed a Civil Application No. 1533/83 before the Gujarat High Court making grievance that the respondents never asked for their options for going to the new place of posting in case of their promotions. The said application was transferred to the Ahmedabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal where it was numbered as Transfer Application No. 263/86. The Tribunal by its judgment dated August 14, 1987 held that the promotion made on the basis of options without resorting to the recruitment rules in terms of quota laid down and the procedure for filling it up is valid as long as it is ad hoc and such ad hoc promotions do not deprive seniority of those who have not given their options for going out to the new place of posting. The Tribunal was further of the view that the employers are free to allow the juniors who have given their options to continue to enjoy promotion on ad hoc basis, but the orders conferring regular promotions to such promotee cannot be upheld in so far as it affects the seniority of those who have not given their options. The officers who have not given their options have the right to promotion in their own turn of seniority. In view of the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal referred to above, the respondents prepared and circulated four draft seniority lists inviting objections, if any. Subsequently, a number of review petitions were filed for reviewing the judgment given by the Tribunal in T.A. No. 263/86, but the said applications were rejected. After the review petitions were rejected, the present appellants filed an application under S. 9 of the Act before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gujarat, at Ahmedabad. Relying upon a Full Bench decision of the Tribunal, in Jhon Lucas v. Additional Chief Mechanical Engineer decided on 2-11-1987, the Tribunal held that the persons who were not a party to a decision but are affected by the decision of the Tribunal are not entitled to file an application under S. 19 of the Act, but can only file a review petition seeking review of the decision adversely affecting them. Consequently the appellants application was rejected summarily. The appellants have now come up to this Court.